Unbiased Americahttps://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me
Facts should dictate opinion, not the other way around.Mon, 16 Jul 2018 21:38:00 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8Unbiased America #41— Constitutional Sound Biteshttps://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/constitutional-sound-bites/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/constitutional-sound-bites/#respondThu, 31 Mar 2016 13:01:45 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=100David Shestokas, author of Constitutional Sound Bites joins the Unbiased Americans to discuss constitutional law and his book on how to make it easy to understand.

]]>https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/constitutional-sound-bites/feed/0Originalism From Start to Finish: Part 1, The Preamblehttps://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/originalism-from-start-to-finish-part-one-the-preamble/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/originalism-from-start-to-finish-part-one-the-preamble/#commentsFri, 25 Mar 2016 22:50:57 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=95“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The preamble of the Constitution was not discussed nor debated at the Constitutional convention. In fact, it was added at the last moment by the head of the Committee of Style, Gouvernuer Morris, a delegate from Pennsylvania. The preamble itself did not have any substantive legal meaning. Yes, you do see “general welfare” in the preamble, but it is the same wording in Article 1, Section 8 that activists have ascribed meaning to. Preambles at the time, were declaratory only, and what Morris accomplished was to outline succinctly the purpose of the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court rightfully came to the same conclusion in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). That does not however, preclude the preamble from containing extremely important elements to understanding the Constitution, how it differs from The Articles of Confederation and what the framers were trying to accomplish. Were they creating a collective nation, a confederacy or a federal constitution? Prior to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation did not contain the word “people” and only listed the states as a party to the compact. “We the people of the United States…” was a significant difference to many Americans during that time. Patrick Henry (anti-federalist) lamented the new phraseology as the federalists intention of creating a “consolidated” national government. Henry, clearly favoring a confederation to consolidation. But Madison made clear many times that it didn’t solely create a consolidated national government or a confederation, but an amalgam of both. Madison writes in Federalist #39 that the Constitution is “neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both.” During the nullification crisis of the late 1820’s, the debate between John C. Calhoun (proponent of state veto or confederated government), and Daniel Webster (proponent of consolidated government) raged on. Calhoun argued that the people in each individual state were sovereign and could veto any federal law they found unconstitutional. Daniel Webster on the other hand, posited that only the people are the true sovereign and collectively, irrespective of state borders, can rightfully nullify federal law via an Article V convention or their natural law right to overthrow a tyrannical government. To each, there was no “middle course,” it was one way or the other. James Madison, catching wind of the debate, highlighted the “not uncommon” mistake made by both men. He explained the United States was a “mixture of both” confederated and consolidated governments. “We the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES in order to form a more perfect UNION…” outlines both the people and the states, creating a union at the behest of the sovereign people. I’ll reiterate, the framers did not create a nation, they created a union. Dr. Christian Fritz explains: Neither Webster’s claim that the American people in “the aggregate” were the sovereign who formed the Constitution nor Calhoun’s position that individual sovereign states were the parties creating the Constitution accurately described the federal founding. Rather, “the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people…as imbodied into the several States…and, therefore, made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.”[56] States acting in their highest sovereign capacity were not the sovereign people of each state acting individually. According to Madison, a state acted in its “highest sovereign capacity” only when the sovereign people of the state acted in combination with the sovereign people of other states.

]]>https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/originalism-from-start-to-finish-part-one-the-preamble/feed/2Unbiased America — Global Warminghttps://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/unbiased-america-global-warming/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/unbiased-america-global-warming/#respondThu, 17 Mar 2016 15:11:03 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=91Joseph Bast, President and CEO of The Heartland Institute, joins us to discuss “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,” and the NIPCC report on global warming. Is there a consensus? Is warming dangerous? We answer some of the most important questions regarding Climate Change and the policy implications regarding the conclusions of the IPCC.

]]>https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/unbiased-america-global-warming/feed/0How Democratic is The U.S.?https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/how-democratic-is-the-u-s/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/how-democratic-is-the-u-s/#respondSun, 28 Feb 2016 19:12:58 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=88The original intent of the framers, contained in the words and clauses of the Constitution are hotly debated in order to ascertain what they meant to the states at the time of ratification in order to better understand the intent, purpose and functionality of the American polity. Among them, is whether the framers intended to create republic or a democracy. A cogent definition of either is needed in order to refute one or the other however; democracies have existed and exist today in varying degrees, making a concise definition nearly impossible. The distinction falls somewhere between a direct democracy and a republic that safeguards axiomatic rights, and respects the rule of law, above purely democratic processes. Few rational people would argue the framers intended to create, what James Madison calls a “pure democracy,” and what Robert Dahl defined as a “direct democracy” (Hamilton, 2006 p. 55; Dahl, 2003 p. 180). Madison sets a distinction between two, and explains the purpose of elected representatives rather than direct involvement of the people as a means to maintain justice, “…to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through a medium of a chosen body of citizens,” rather than to popular whim, because they “…will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations” (The FederalistN. 10 p.56). Madison wanted to insulate the body politic from the temporary passions of the majority (themselves). Robert Dahl explains the framers mindset towards popular rule in this context, “A substantial number of the framers believed that they must erect constitutional barriers to popular rule because the people would become and unruly mob…” (Dahl, 2003, p. 24). Nowhere in the federal constitution, nor any of the state constitutions, is the word democracy used. This does not preclude the notion that some forms of the federal government are democratic, nor that the majority in some circumstances must rule. However, all the power cannot be placed in a majority insofar as it can be placed in a minority. The framers understood that the rights of the individual are not at the behest of a majority, and there are times when the individual is free from majority rule. They also understood, that tyranny is not exclusive to majorities, but that the minority can also become tyrannical. It was to this idea that the framers limited the powers of the federal government by creating a system whereby the President, the senators and representatives would be elected by different constituencies at different times, as well as including the Bill of Rights (Bork, 1990, p. 139). In my view, this is how the United States Constitution differs from a direct democracy by recognizing the authority of self-government while at the same time acknowledging its limits and vice versa. In short, the freedom of the majority to rule, and the freedom of the individual from majority rule are at constant odds. In Robert Dahl’s argument on the undemocratic aspects of government, he incorporates state legislatures choosing senators so that “Members of the Senate would serve as a check on the Representatives, who were all subject to popular elections every two years” (Dahl, 2003, p. 17). Dahl is in fact correct, as Hamilton points out in Federalist No. 9, that the purpose of the legislatures appointing senators was not solely to check the House of Representatives, but to incorporate the states into the “ constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them direct representation in the senate…” (Hamilton, 2006, p. 51). James Madison in Federalist No. 59 elaborates on Dahl’s position, that “In republican government, the legislative authority predominates. The remedy…is to divide the legislature into different branches, and to render them, by different modes of elections…as little connected with each other” (Hamilton, 2006, p. 289). The framers, rather than intending to maximize popular sovereignty, were far more concerned with protecting individual liberty. Not only would power be diffused by the tripartite federal government, whose powers were separate and distinct, but also amongst the state governments as “they may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is no wise essential to the operation or organization of the former” (Hamilton, 2006, p. 258). The states created the federal government not to consolidate democratic principles, but to ensure more harmony amongst the several states by transferring specific, enumerated powers to the federal government. Therefore, the Constitution is more of a restrictive document that protects minority rights over that of the majority. Dahl’s folly in his argument in favor of democratic principles in the Constitution is invoking the Bill of Rights as bolstering said position. Dahl writes, “They [Bill of Rights] resulted instead from demands…by delegates who generally favored a more democratic system than their colleagues could then accept… the amendments have proved to be a veritable cornucopia of rights necessary to a democratic order” (Dahl, 2003. P. 27). Dahl fails to recognize that the Bill of Rights delineated the specific liberties minorities are to have, and are not subject to democratic processes or influences. They also restricted action by Congress over the states and the people as well as outline more appropriately the purposes of a republic at the expense of democracy. A majority of Dahl’s arguments seem to be mired in personal predilections that favor consolidating democratic principles into the federal government, Dahl writes, “undemocratic aspects that were more or less deliberately built into the constitution overestimated the dangers of popular majorities…” (Dahl, 2003, p. 39). Dahl gives no explanation thereafter as to how they overestimated the dangers of popular majorities, or if that was the sole purpose of the Constitution alone. He explains further that the “legitimacy of the Constitution ought to derive solely from its utility as an instrument of democratic government—nothing more, nothing less” (Dahl, 2003, p. 39). The Federalist Papers alone provide as solid refutation to the purpose of the Constitution as furthering a purely democratic cause. The convention was not called in 1787 because the framers and founders felt as though the confederacy was not democratic enough. Does this mean that in Dahl’s view the Constitution is illegitimate? There are most definitely democratic principles in the Constitution—direct elections of members of the House of Representatives and Madison’s repeated assertions that the legislature is the most powerful body in the federal government—gives far more creed to the assertion that the framers intended to create a representative democracy. Archon Fung in his “Democratic Theory and Political Science” essay seeks to define and differentiate between disparate forms of democracy. He separates them into four categories: minimal, aggregative, deliberative, and participatory. The United States incorporates an amalgam of all four of Fung’s conceptions of democracy, but does not favor one over the other, nor the idea of direct democracy as explained earlier. The two most prominent of the democratic principles that are incorporated into our Constitution per Fung’s definition are minimal democracy and deliberative democracy. Minimal democracy inasmuch as it “renders political leaders accountable to its citizens and because it protects private liberties “ (Fung p. 448). All three elected representatives at the federal level are in some way accountable to the people, either directly or indirectly. The Bill or Rights protects private liberties, to which Dahl attributes entire to democratic principles over republican principles, which I think is misguided. Secondly, components of deliberative democracy are included in our Constitution, both houses of the bicameral legislature must be deliberated and “based on reasons that all citizens should accept” (Fung, p. 449). The Constitution, as the framers intended, includes aspects of democratic principles including self-government. However, these principles only go so far as they reach the unalienable rights of the individual. The Constitution was not drafted and ratified to make the confederacy more democratic, but to better facilitate commerce and bolster national security. This does not preclude the document from incorporating some democratic features, but the same time, it includes measures that mitigates and ameliorates the negative aspects of those same democratic ideals therein. The argument of democracy v. republic is a red herring of sorts. The reconciliation of self-government and individual rights undergirds the entirety of the debate, yet is seldom directly addressed.

]]>https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/how-democratic-is-the-u-s/feed/0GOP debate a “fiasco?”: Here’s whyhttps://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/gop-debate-a-fiasco-heres-why/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/gop-debate-a-fiasco-heres-why/#commentsFri, 26 Feb 2016 18:15:35 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=84During and the day after, many people have been lamenting yesterday’s GOP debate. I’ve heard people call it a “clown show” “embarrassing” “a bunch of spoiled brats” etc. My question to these people is: what did you expect? Did people expect a robust debate on the merits of judicial review and jurisprudence that incorporates the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment, or how protectionist tariffs harm those people that are most vulnerable by increasing the prices of goods and services–maybe you expected them to discuss the merits of separation of powers, American sovereignty and the right to self-government? RNC chair Reince Priebus has proven to be an woefully inept leader of the GOP and leaves the debates in the hands of networks that know exactly what they’re doing and have every incentive to do it. Since the first debate on Fox News–that was more about ratings than helping the GOP electorate better understand where candidates stand on particular issues–they have been merely about ratings and advertising and the voter has been put on the back burner. Most of these moderators and media outlets are hostile to the Republican platform as a whole, and one is hostile to the Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee wing of the GOP (Fox News). They delight in the hostility and the ratings frenzy they create. All the candidates are left with is positioning and likability. They attack one another’s credibility and what you get is a cacophony of ad hominem’s and little, if any, substance. The GOP is to blame, the networks are to blame and the electorate, which largely votes based on likability as opposed to substance, share some of the blame. How else could a man with little substance and huge claims, that merely mimics the anger and frustration of an electorate desperately clamoring for the substance it deserves, be the commanding front-runner? I’ve yet to hear a majority of GOP voters coalesce to take more control of their own debates, after all, these are THEIR debates to learn about THEIR candidates. So let’s not act surprised when the GOP debates turn out exactly how they were set-up to be.

]]>https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/gop-debate-a-fiasco-heres-why/feed/2Healthcare Costs on the Rise Under Obamacarehttps://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/healthcare-costs-on-the-rise-under-obamacare/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/healthcare-costs-on-the-rise-under-obamacare/#commentsTue, 23 Feb 2016 23:25:53 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=81Core inflation (Consumer Price Index minus food and energy prices) is on the rise in the healthcare industry. The three measures that most analysts and commentators use to gauge whether healthcare costs are on the rise are total healthcare spending, medical care costs and the costs of providing health insurance (Forbes), and all three are on the rise (CNN). Both medical care and health insurance have been steadily increasing: In January, health insurance rose 1.8% and is 4.8% higher than a year ago (BLS) Medical care costs in the same year have risen 3% (BLS) The subsidies have helped lower prices but the inflation calculation takes into account government spending as well (investors). The deep decline prior to the eventual rise can be explained by a lack of demand in a slow economy as well as the restructuring of plans with much higher deductibles, raising out-of-pocket expenses. Although these plans existed prior to Obamacare, the law made them far more prevalent than ever before (Forbes). These one time factors seem to be coming to an end. The increases may give the Fed the excuse they are seeking to increase rates sometime in the coming year if these inflationary trends continue and would certainly effect the tepid economy we have had since the Great Recession (CNBC). However, the Fed pays more attention the the core PCE deflator (Personal Consumption Expenditures) which is inching higher, but slowly. Not fast enough for the Fed to take any sudden action (advisorperspective). What’s more worrisome is despite the rising premiums, UnitedHealth (UNH), Aetna (AET) and Humana (HUM) are warning of losses in the exchanges which will put pressure on further increases in the future (investors). Obamacare’s added costs have to be paid by someone, and simply redistributing wealth from one person to another (subsidies) negatively impacts savings and investments in the private economy, lowering total output. Medical professionals as well as insurance companies are finding ways to pass these on to the consumers, but in the case of the insurance companies, not fast enough. Sources: http://www.forbes.com/…/06/the-coming-healthcare-inflation/… http://money.cnn.com/…/28/news/economy/health-care-spending/ http://www.advisorperspectives.com/…/up…/PCE-Price-Index.php http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm http://www.cnbc.com/…/medical-cost-inflation-highest-level-… http://www.investors.com/…/cpi-flat-in-jan-as-obamacare-bo…/

]]>https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/healthcare-costs-on-the-rise-under-obamacare/feed/2Bernie’s Radical Past: What Kind of Socialist is He?https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/bernies-radical-past-what-kind-of-socialist-is-he/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/bernies-radical-past-what-kind-of-socialist-is-he/#commentsSun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:48 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=73We hear often in the media and on the campaign trail from Donald Trump’s adversaries about his less than conservative positions on eminent domain, health care, late-term abortions, bank bailouts and support of various left-wing candidates. We hear an awful lot of Hillary’s past indiscretions, though, as a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State, who ran for president 8 years ago, that should be of little surprise. What is surprising (not really) is how little we hear about Bernie’s past and his support for “radical change” and a “political revolution.” It seems the left is always running from it’s own history, whether that be progressive support for segregation, Jim Crow, scientific racism, internment of American citizens, participation in World War I, eugenics, etc. The NYT reports that in 1963, Sanders was a guest of “Hashomer Hatzair, a Marxist youth movement founded by communist Ya’akov Hazan.” Hazan, eulogizing Stalin proclaimed, “His huge historical achievements will guide generations in their march toward the reign of socialism and communism the world over” (Investors). The NYT reports on Sander’s specific camp/movement: “the kibbutz was founded in Romania in 1929 and established in pre-state Israel in 1935. It saw the Soviet Union as a model, and often flew the red flag at outdoor events. Volunteers like Mr. Sanders would have internalized a political imperative to improve the lot of other…” Hazan, the camp’s leader, has been quoted as calling Stalin “a great leader and extolled commander” (Investors). I know what you’re thinking: that was a long time ago, right? In the 70s and 80s he called for the government takeover of private businesses and government seizure of private wealth. In 1985, in a letter to the Sandinistas, he lauded their movement as a “heroic revolution” while claimed the US engaging in “terrorist activities” (Investors). In 1989, he addressed the US Peace Council, a known Communist Party USA front group, that swore an oath to “the triumph of Soviet power in the US” (Discover…) I posted a piece on Unbiased America a a few days back proving the failure of socialism in Venezuela, many people made the claim; ‘Bernie doesn’t want to take over industries, it’s not that kind of socialism!” I provided you with the evidence and I’ll let you decide. What kind is he? -Will Ricciardella Sources: http://www.investors.com/…/bernie-sanders-democratic-socia…/ http://www.nytimes.com/…/politi…/bernie-sanders-kibbutz.html http://www.theguardian.com/…/bernie-sanders-profile-democra… http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp… http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.701513

]]>https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/bernies-radical-past-what-kind-of-socialist-is-he/feed/3A Constitution in the Breach: The Origins of Judicial Reviewhttps://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/a-constitution-in-the-breach-the-origins-of-judicial-review/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/a-constitution-in-the-breach-the-origins-of-judicial-review/#respondMon, 15 Feb 2016 17:40:13 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=62A Constitution in the breach: the most egregiously poor SCOTUS decisions of all time. There are several I will cover in chronological order. I will try to make them as concise, incisive and succinct as humanly possible. 1. MARBURY V. MADISON (1803) WHY: Established the extra-constitutional power of judicial review from which all other activist decisions originate. BRIEF BACKGROUND: (The background here is thick and involved and I want to spare you from as much of it as possible, it can get awfully boring. I want to, however, give you enough information that you will better understand the motivations behind such a judicial power grab.) The idea of Judicial Review was nothing new in the nascent republic. Samuel Chase in Calder v. Bull (1798), made the case for the Supreme Court to strike down laws that in no way violated any provision of any constitution, federal or state. His argument thereof was devoid of any logical basis and his opinion was mired in verbal gymnastics masked with a prolixity found in many of the SCOTUS activist decisions we see today. However, contemporary Courts tend to be far less candid in powers that don’t belong to them than Justice Chase was. Chase was an extremely partisan judge (he was later impeached because of it, but escaped conviction in the Senate), and his likely federalist leanings may have been the impetus for his activist proclivities. This is precisely the reason John Marshall (a federalist, Thomas Jefferson’s cousin and political rival, never got along) created the power out of thin air dealing with a case that should have never been in the Supreme Court in the first place. In short, judicial review was born out of political motives and expediency. John Adams (a federalist), before the subsequent election of Thomas Jefferson (a Republican), did as much as he could to maintain the federal judiciary as a federalist stronghold. Federalists favored a much stronger federal government than did the Republicans and a political struggle and rivalry ensued. When Adams realized he was not going to be re-elected he helped create and pass the Judiciary Act of 1801, creating 16 new federal judgeships of which Adams would appoint federalist judges. Adams’ term ran out, however, before his Secretary of State, John Marshall, could deliver all the new commissions. Marshall’s successor, James Madison, refused to deliver them, William Marbury (one of the appointed judges) filed suit in federal court seeking a writ of mandamus directing Madison to deliver said commissions (Madison was so flustered by the suit he didn’t show up). John Marshall assumed the position of Chief Justice precisely one month after Adams left office. With a newly elected Republican Congress in 1800 Marshall understood the tenuous nature of his position on the Court and the very real possibility of Jefferson and Congress to denude the Judiciary of power. Marshall knew he had to do something. DID SCOTUS HAVE JURISDICTION: It was a very odd suit to begin with and what is even more odd is that Marbury brought this case to the wrong court. Article III of the Constitution places certain cases within the jurisdiction of the appellate courts. These are cases that appear in the lower courts and come to the SCOTUS for review. This case did not fall under the criteria of original jurisdiction whatsoever and should have been dismissed. THE DECISION: Marshall, in stroke of political genius (in favor of the federalists), asserted that Marbury had something similar to a property right to hold an office (precedent at the time), which he had been appointed to and confirmed. He went on to assert that the Court has the power to strike down statutes that were inconsistent with the Constitution. Not only did he ignore the fact that the Court has absolutely no jurisdiction in this matter, he invented a doctrine that had absolutely no constitutional basis. Judicial Review was born, upsetting the delicate balance between the federal government and the states along with all fidelity to the document over time. – Will Ricciardella

]]>https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/a-constitution-in-the-breach-the-origins-of-judicial-review/feed/0Liberty or Tyranny: A Constitutional Crisishttps://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/liberty-or-tyranny-a-constitutional-crisis/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/liberty-or-tyranny-a-constitutional-crisis/#commentsSun, 14 Feb 2016 19:01:16 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=51With the death of Antonin Scalia, many conservatives and libertarians have been lamenting the political power shift within the federal judiciary. However, few people have been lamenting the constitutional review powers of nine unelected lawyers — a judicial power they were never intended to have. Think about it: why would the states and the people create a document expressly limiting the federal government, and then grant to it sole power to restrict itself? Did the framers intend to create a document that safeguarded already existing individual rights and the sovereignty of the states from an entity it deemed the sole arbiter of those rights? “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…” That sentence outlines who is sovereign OVER the Constitution, the former half, the collective people, and the latter half, the states. The framers formed a union, not a nation. That is very important to remember. Many agree that Scalia was a great justice, but some forget his decision in Gonzales v. Raich, allowing Congress to regulate “local cultivation, possession and consumption of marijuana.” Scalia, it could be reasoned, didn’t want to violate stare decisis–a principle of adhering to precedent instead of the original intent of the framers. In this particular case, the precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn, a decision that virtually eviscerated the interstate commerce clause and gave the federal government the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Judicial review means that cases like Dred Scott (owning people as property, and playing large part in starting the Civil War), Plessy (separate but equal/Jim Crow) and Korematsu (the internment of American citizens) will become law through fiat, essentially amending the Constitution without the input of the sovereign states and the people. Stare decisis, on the other hand, will ensure that even judges of differing political persuasions in the future will be reluctant to change it. Robert Bork once quipped about the Dred Scott case, “There is something wrong … with a judicial power that can produce a decision it takes a Civil War to overturn.” Considering our president and the historical judicial activism of the Left, his activist appointees to federal district courts and to the SCOTUS, I don’t think I’m going too far to say our republic is at stake.

]]>https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/liberty-or-tyranny-a-constitutional-crisis/feed/1An Analytical View of The Chilean Miraclehttps://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/an-analytical-view-of-the-chilean-miracle/
https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/an-analytical-view-of-the-chilean-miracle/#respondFri, 12 Feb 2016 06:44:00 +0000https://unbiasedamerica.liberty.me/?p=17he dynamics of the economic marketplace in many South American countries has been due mainly to political instability based on the effort of South American leaders to centralize government’s economic and political power at the expense of individual liberty. Economic mechanisms are sometimes used to subsume the individual into the state, and grow executive power. However, neo-liberal market reforms instituted in Chile after the coup that ousted Allende, slowly eroded executive power during a tacit shift towards individual freedom. This in turn increased economic production that eventually lead to the peaceful ousting of Pinochet’s authoritarian dictatorship, and a thriving economy. The failure of other Latin American democracies in South America has been due to the political insecurity of the executive to relinquish total economic control. Freedom isn’t only the right to be politically free, via the rule of law and democratic elections, but also economically free, via voluntary transactions in a market driven economy. The free market principles of market reform in South America are based on the idea of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”, the notion that the allocation of scarce resources with alternative uses is done most efficiently by free people in voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions, as opposed to government coordination of economic arrangements. This spontaneous order, according to Dr. Milton Friedman, can also remove some of the political constraints by government over the individual. According to Friedman, “By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power, rather than reinforcement.” (Friedman 15) The more economic control the government has over the individual, the more one will look to the government rather than themselves or others, to solve their problems, directly correlating to increased political power for the state. Immediately following the global economic instability of the Great Depression beginning in 1930, dictators and presidents have been using economic control to gain and maintain political power. For instance, in the 1930s, Brazil’s Getulio Vargas backed by the military, instituted the “Estavo Novo” or “new state” and declared himself dictator. His government interventions into the economic realm were modeled after Italian fascism of the same time period. He instituted import substitution and corporatist policies that “…combined strong government involvement in economic activities with the organization of workers into government controlled unions.” (Vanden and Provost 229). Peron, in Argentina followed a similar model to that of Vargas in Brazil, “In power, Peron’s strategy was similar to that of Vargas’… his rule took on nationalistic tones and policies of economic protectionism were implemented. The government took a strong hold of the economy…” (Vanden and Provost 229). These two populist leaders in Latin America derived their power by controlling individual’s economic situation by limiting competition for both input and output, while dissipating the costs among the population as a whole. This corporatist/fascist mentality is largely associated with the political “right” and perceived to be on the opposite pole of the political spectrum than communism. However, this conclusion disregards altogether the relation of the individual to the state in both systems and his subjugation thereof; both fascism and communism are different degrees of statism, as both clearly institute various degrees of dirigisme. In professor Peter Drucker’s study of totalitarianism, he saw fascism as the logical ideological progression of socialism, “Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Stalinist Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.” (Hayek 80) Moreover, after his research on the origins of fascism and it’s relation to communism, largely from first-hand accounts, led prominent economist F.A. Hayek to conclude, “While to many who have watched the transition from socialism to fascism at close quarters the connection between the two systems has become increasingly obvious…” (Hayek 81-82). Furthermore, prominent 21st century economist Dr. Thomas Sowell adds, “…there is remarkably little difference between Communists and Fascists, except for rhetoric, and there is far more in common between fascists and the moderate left…” (Intellectuals 99). The intervention into the economy by government is primarily out of political expediency; ensuring political longevity and increasing the concentration of power afforded to the state, specifically the executive branch. Dirigiste economies are inherently flawed and tend to fail irrespective of where state control is focused (socialism/fascism), and thus provides the political capital needed to employ such a blatant political power grab. For example, in Argentina during the military regime of the late 70s and early 80s the military junta, despite economic counsel citing the economic instability was due to an interventionist state and the ISI strategy, advised the junta that, “loosening of free market forces would not only create the conditions for renewed economic growth but also discipline the social actors…” The junta’s inability or “persistent refusals” to relinquish “their state-oriented expectations and behaviors… led to economic disaster.” (Vanden and Provost 435). The state, rather than implementing economic freedom that could threaten their political power, chose the status quo at the economic peril of the people. The junta’s inability to relinquish control over the economy eventually did them in. This dissatisfaction with the economic instability perpetuated by the state eventually paved the way for Carlos Menem’s democratic election in 1989, and the political capital needed for market reform, albeit partial. Despite growing inflation and economic instability that had been growing for decades, Menem was able to quell the inflation by his “convertibility law”, which pegged the Argentine peso to the U.S. dollar, stabilizing the money supply and bringing down inflation by using their foreign exchange reserves as a commodity (Schamis 71). In addition to a stable currency, Menem promulgated market reforms, which “included trade-liberalization, deregulation, and privatization.” (Schamis, Transition 72). In Short, the parity of the Argentine peso and the U.S. dollar, proved to be a Trojan horse and eventually became its demise. “Bank money” and ensuing credit expansion due to lax reserve requirements eventually lead to an economic bust in 2001-2002 (Schamis, Transition 73). Menem’s partial market reforms were initially successful, and a statist political power grab ensued as he attempted to capitalize on his economic success with increased political power (Schamis 72). Thus, leading to centralized state power corrupting the entire economy, particularly in Menem’s case, running up massive federal deficits in order to sustain Menem’s “strategy for achieving constitutional reform and winning reelection.” And eventually lead to the economic collapse in 2001-2002 (Schamis, Transition 72). A few years later the Kirchner’s, beginning with Nestor and then later his wife Christina, implemented pragmatic policies to stabilize the economy. From there, following a well established pattern in South America, the political power grab ensued. Christina’s political and economic overreach—far more egregious and further “left” than her husbands before her—advocated for more state control of the economy and a nationalization that Professor Schamis describes as “more Chavez-like than anything else” (Schamis, Decay 72). Schamis describes further the goal of such economic and political power grabs by the state in broader terms: “Social policy through government discretion in a system marked by concentrated executive authority is fundamentally a tool to give rulers more resources for their patronage—that is, to control social groups and diminish the autonomy of civil society. The idea that some rights have to be violated for others to be advanced is thus perverse; it is just about abusing power, which plants the seeds of an undemocratic political order.” (Decay, 74) No matter where on the political spectrum one may be, violations of political and economic rights are inevitable in a system where government is concentrated in an all-powerful executive; as individual rights are manipulated by the state to erode the civil society as means to end. In the case of Chile, the situation is somewhat symmetrical to Argentina, yet in many ways asymmetrical. The key difference being more pragmatic and realistic macroeconomic advice under the junta by the “Chicago boys”, a group of Chilean economists that had studied under the tutelage of Milton Friedman at Chicago University (Stephens). The market reforms success came in spite of a ruthless dictator and an economy in shambles, as Bret Stephens explains, “Inflation topped out at an annual rate of 1000%, foreign currency reserves depleted, and per capita GDP was roughly that of Peru…” The cause of the economic catastrophe was inherent in Allende’s statist economic policy that was rife with expropriations; often by force, nationalization, wage and price controls and rationing of consumer goods by local boards called the “Unions of Supply and Price Controls” know as JAP (Lira). The latter was instituted due to the inflation and lack of consumer goods as an economic consequence of the former. Lira describes how rations were distributed if an individual was openly opposed the state, “these people perceived as “unfriendly” to Allende… received insufficient rations for their families, or no rations at all.” (Lira). The socialist policies of Allende worked to stifle political freedom just as much as economic freedom. The complete decimation of the economy by the Marxist economic policies of Allende lead ultimately to a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet and a period of 17 years of dictatorial rule. Once in office, Pinochet’s ultimate goal was to stamp out socialism, not just programmatically, but by force. The statist, authoritarian junta persecuted anyone associated with the socialist or communist parties; many were killed, tortured, imprisoned or exiled at the hands of junta (Vanden, Provost 466). Like Allende and others before him, as well as other leaders In South American politics during his time, Pinochet, “commander-in-chief of the army, centralized power in his person…” (Vanden, Provost 466). The transition from Marxism to Pinochet and the Chicago boys didn’t occur simultaneously, rather the “continuing economic decline forced him to look for some new policy alternatives.” (Stephens). It wasn’t until March 1975 that the Chicago boy’s policies had been implemented. The market reforms instituted under Chile were congruent to that of Argentinean President Carlos Menem, and were not at all entirely “laissez-faire” or free market. Moreover, the reforms pursued were not to the extent espoused by Milton Friedman, as Jonathan Marshall explains in an 1983 article, “Freidman’s own protégés abandoned laissez-faire economics at certain critical junctures, and these departures, not any maniacal monetarism, produced Chile’s suffering.” (Doherty) This article written in the in early 80’s when Chile was in the midst of a slow economy, most likely due to a restriction and correction of the monetary policy (Doherty). One deviation was pegging the Chilean peso to U.S. dollars in the early 80’s, subsequently overvaluing the peso and hurting exports (like Menem’s convertibility law). Another deviation was Pinochet, like Peron and Vargas before him, oversaw a system of corporatism that protected state favored business’ from the competition of the free market in the form of government credit and bailouts (Doherty). However, these limited market reforms, in spite of corporatism and devaluation of the peso were reasonable steps in the right direction. Two of which made this possible, monetary stabilization (Martinez) and the other, was giving the means of production (private property) back to the people (Vanden, Provost 466). Private property rights are essential to any world economy and a backbone of neo-liberal market reforms. Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell explains, “For economic activities that take some time, property rights are a prerequisite, so that those who farm or invest in business can feel assured that the fruits of their activities will be theirs” (Facts and Fallacies 218). Many believe wrongly that property rights only benefit the wealthy, but Sowell delves further and explains that even those without property have a huge stake in private property rights, “if they are to be employed in an economy made prosperous by the presence of property rights.” (Facts and Fallacies 218). Moreover, in the absence of such rights, as seen under the Allende regime, production drastically decreases or ceases altogether. Like Milton Friedman, who once proclaimed back in 1962, while discussing individual freedom in economic arraignments, explicitly states that it is a vehicle to political freedom, “…economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.” (Friedman 8). Not only did the reforms help Chile, Friedman’s assertion proved to be substantive. The eventual macroeconomic stability in the late 80’s, among other factors, was a large part of the eventual democratic transition in 1990 (Martinez). When Pinochet finally stepped down in 1990, GDP had risen by 40% (in 2005 dollars); by comparison, Peru and Argentina during the same time period, stagnated (Stephens). As of 2010, and a result of their market reforms Chile has become South Americans richest people, with the lowest levels of corruption, lowest infant mortality rate and lowest number of people living below the poverty line (Stephens). In conclusion, not only are economic freedoms separate from political freedom, they are both components of a greater whole: individual liberty. The only mechanism that protects both the worker and the consumer is competition in a free market. As we have seen in South America, leaders use economic arraignments and coercion to increase their power at the expense of political and economic liberty; both fascism and socialism employ this tactic in similar fashion to achieve the same result. Chile is a unique case in which a military junta, a top down organization, promoted an economic policy that was bottom up. The success of their economic structure in comparison to the Marxist policies before is undeniable. The political atrocities committed by Pinochet are deplorable, yet the neo-liberal market reforms remain today, despite two moderate socialist presidents from 2000-2010, a clear vindication of the Chilean market reform’s success (Vanden, Prevost 467-468).